.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

I Hate Linux

Saturday, October 13, 2007

A double standard from John Dozier

While doing a little more research on our friend John Dozier, managing partner of the now infamously thuggish Dozier Internet Law (yes I know there are far better things I could be doing on a Saturday night) I ran across an interview with him where this question and answer came up (answer truncated for length):

Ted Murphy:


A lot of the things that we're talking about there, are things that – that are specific to an employee or specific to the company in – in regards to blogs, but what about the legal issues surrounding consumer posts on a – on a blog? You know, if – if I post something about a new product that I'm releasing and I allow comments back from the – the public, what do I need to look for there? Do I – you know, is that opening me up for – for potential liability based on those public comments back on my blog?


John Dozier:


Yes, it is very high risk. Fundamentally, we in the U.S. determined, you know, back in the late 90's that this was a potential problem and could impact the free expression of ideas of the internet. So Congress passed immunity for the owners of blogs as long as they are not involved directly in managing content and really changing, potentially editing and changing what is being said.


If you're editing and changing what's being said, making judgment calls that could impact the – the message that's being sent out, then you – then you have absolute liability as a publisher for what third-parties are saying.

So according to Mr. Dozier... so long as a blog or site does not directly edit or change what is being said... then the site owner is largely immune.

Funny, Infomercial Scams.com says this on their submission form:

Scams are posted uncensored!

Something that the original C&D letter noted... and called it "willfully false and misleading" and "defamatory".

So on one hand... Mr. Dozier claims that statements on sites like Infomercial Scams are legal and that such site owners are not liable... while on the other hand his firm insists that they are and amongst other things... seemingly engages in racketeering in demanding that the publisher, not the originator of the controversial comments pay up without any semblance of legal process.

This seems rather contradictory... and when I think of such things I think of a quote from Atlas Shrugged:

I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

So which is it John?


  • We have been busy at InventorEd researching Dozier Internet Law and Inventor-Link over the past week. This is documented on www.CyberTrialLawyer-SUCKS.com and on www.InventorEd.org/caution/inventor-link/.

    Be sure to revisit the above referenced web pages as we are constantly updating and expanding the material.

    We are looking for a volunteer lawyer to draft ethics complaints on our behalf. We firmly feel that the attorneys at Dozier should have to explain their conduct.

    Frankly I wish that more of our invention promoter adversaries would hire firms like Dozier Internet Law. I think that they are real buffoons.

    Ronald J. Riley,
    President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
    Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
    Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org - RRiley at PatentPolicy.org
    Washington, DC
    Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.

    By Blogger Ronald J Riley, at 5:02 PM  

  • In reference to Ronald J. Riley's plea for free legal services, please be advised that he has been collecting "donations" from unsuspecting inventors for several years. He even takes credit cards! His organizations have provided no tangible results for the individual inventor or for patent reform. He is always seeking free legal services to fight for little-known causes which are his own personal grudges. He hosts several "SUCKS" websites which are personal crusades designed to make him feel better about himself. Good luck finding a "volunteer lawyer" Mr. Ronald J. Riley - you'll find him at a ballgame with the Tooth Fairy.

    By Anonymous William A. Scott Esq., at 5:09 PM  

  • It is a fact that Dozier Internet Law has represented one invention promoter www.InventorEd.org/caution/inventor-link/ in the past and there is some reason to think that posts by William Scott, Esq. may be associated with a promoter who was busted in FTC sting named Project Mousetrap.

    Awhile back I received a series of extortion emails offering to remove defamatory and false posts about me and the referenced blog in exchange for removing the writer's client's page. While they refused to specifically identify their client the facts they presented have a high correlation with the party who was the ringleader of the companies nailed by Project Mousetrap. There is also reason to believe that that person may be the party behind Inventor-Link.

    I refused, telling the party that I have enough information to track them and now it appears that Dozier is using my response to that series of communications in his claims.

    Now that is a rather interesting combination of circumstances.

    One last point, I have representation but we are quite happy to collaborate with anyone who is interested in protecting the First Amendment from lawyers like Dozier.

    Ronald J. Riley,

    Speaking only on my own behalf.
    President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
    Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
    Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
    President - Alliance for American Innovation
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
    Washington, DC
    Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.

    By Blogger Ronald J Riley, at 3:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home